The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interpretation as abduction
Open accessAbstract
Abduction is inference to the best explanation. In the TACITUS project at SRI we have developed an approach to abductive inference, called “weighted abduction”, that has resulted in a significant simplification of how the problem of interpreting texts is conceptualized. The interpretation of a text is the minimal explanation of why the text would be true. More precisely, to interpret a text, one must prove the logical form of the text from what is already mutually known, allowing for coercions, merging redundancies where possible, and making assumptions where necessary. It is shown how such “local pragmatics” problems as reference resolution, the interpretation of compound nominals, the resolution of syntactic ambiguity and metonymy, and schema recognition can be solved in this manner. Moreover, this approach of “interpretation as abduction” can be combined with the older view of “parsing as deduction” to produce an elegant and thorough integration of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, one that spans the range of linguistic phenomena from phonology to discourse structure. Finally, we discuss means for making the abduction process efficient, possibilities for extending the approach to other pragmatics phenomena, and the semantics of the weights and costs in the abduction scheme.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Circumscription—A form of non-monotonic reasoning
McCarthy, J. (1980) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(80)90011-9 · Cited by 2,017
Cited by
The computational complexity of abduction
Bylander, T., Allemang, D., Tanner, M. C., & Josephson, J. R. (1991) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(91)90005-5 · Cited by 406
Iterative Visual Reasoning Beyond Convolutions
Chen, X., Li, L.-J., Fei-Fei, L., & Gupta, A. (2018) · 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2018.00756 · Cited by 236
ProofWriter: Generating implications, proofs, and abductive statements over natural language
Tafjord, O., Dalvi, B., & Clark, P. (2021) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.317 · Cited by 122
Boutilier, C., & Beche, V. (1995) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(94)00025-v · Cited by 118
Metadata
- Authors
- Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. E., Appelt, D. E., & Martin, P.
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1993-10
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 69-142
- ISSN
- 0004-3702 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W123527740
- Cited by
- 1,223
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interpretation as abduction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4
- The paper
- Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. E., Appelt, D. E., & Martin, P. (1993). Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.